Conduct by a monopoly infrastructure owner in exercising contractual rights, including negotiating the departure of a user in a way that increases charges to remaining users, does not constitute unconscionable conduct under s 21 ACL where the conduct does not involve predation, victimisation, or unfair exploitation of vulnerability or disadvantage. A contractual obligation to demonstrate that operator charges are 'reasonable having regard to the efficient operation' of infrastructure requires demonstration that the charges are reasonable for operating the facility as it exists, not that the facility itself is of optimal efficiency. A most-favoured-nation clause comparing what users are 'charged' compares what the owner is entitled to charge, not amounts actually payable after operation of disputed invoice mechanisms.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.